Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
I have one of these in my 1911. Seemed like a good answer to me. What are you thoughts on it? Not like I can't pull it out easy enough.
heavy loads for a 45 acp which molds , Arsenal, Accurate, Lee, or NOE.
- Thread starter joethereloader
- Start date
CWLONGSHOT
Well-Known Member
In cup n core Speer used to offer a heavy 260g bullet. I have sent a box or two thru my Govt 45. As mentioned no real advantage found. I love heavy for caliber bullets too. BUT and its a big but, case cap and ability to make to power to utilize that bullets advantage is limited by powder cap.
I "argue" this constantly with 10mm guys wanting heavy for caliber.
In all calibers, you have optimal bullet weights. But in Pistol calibers its very well defined.
The Lee 230 is a dandy & cheap I prefer the conventional grease groove design. RCBS make one too slightly lighter but larger meplat. Both "TC" designs for perfect feeding.
CW
I "argue" this constantly with 10mm guys wanting heavy for caliber.
In all calibers, you have optimal bullet weights. But in Pistol calibers its very well defined.
The Lee 230 is a dandy & cheap I prefer the conventional grease groove design. RCBS make one too slightly lighter but larger meplat. Both "TC" designs for perfect feeding.
CW
358156 hp
At large, whereabouts unknown.
Agreed. There is a definite bell curve involved with any heavy for caliber bullet combo, but for auto pistols especially, there are several curves, and an abrupt end to utility. It all goes back to the loads mission parameters, and which feature of your load combo that you need to focus on. My 230 LBT was chosen under the parameters of "if I could have only one bullet for 45 ACP...." It's pure death on bowling pins, and designed for use on deer size game, and is acceptably accurate at lower speeds, but I never did find a Bullseye level load for it, but that wasn't a priority in the first place. If I need much higher horsepower, it sits next to my .44 Redhawk in the safe.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
Since there is no way to make the diameter larger, the only way to make a bullet heavier is to make it longer. This will result in a longer overall cartridge length, or less available case capacity from the deeper seated bullet OR some combination of reduced case capacity AND longer overall cartridge length.
In a semi-auto pistol, the magazine size will likely dictate the maximum overall length that will function.. Plus, bullet profile and OAL will be factors in how (or even IF) the cartridge will feed from the magazine to the chamber. The throat in the barrel may play a role in the cartridge’s ability to fully seat in the chamber when using longer bullets.
To all of that we add reduced velocity of the heavier projectile and increased forces on the slide. Then we start doing things like increasing recoil spring weights to compensate for the higher forces. The endeavor can quickly become a viscous cycle of changing one parameter (bullet weight) and then addressing all of the problems that flow from that change such as: increased slide forces, required changes to throat geometry, magazine restrictions, reduced available case volume, feed angles, twist rates, etc. etc.
All cartridges have ideal bullet weights. While there is some range of bullets weights by cartridge, that range is tighter for handguns than rifles. Handguns really are designed around a specific bullet weight. Revolvers are a bit more tolerant to a larger range of bullet weights than pistols.
Standard bullet weights for a cartridge exist for a reason. Those bullet weights are not accidental or arbitrary.
In a semi-auto pistol, the magazine size will likely dictate the maximum overall length that will function.. Plus, bullet profile and OAL will be factors in how (or even IF) the cartridge will feed from the magazine to the chamber. The throat in the barrel may play a role in the cartridge’s ability to fully seat in the chamber when using longer bullets.
To all of that we add reduced velocity of the heavier projectile and increased forces on the slide. Then we start doing things like increasing recoil spring weights to compensate for the higher forces. The endeavor can quickly become a viscous cycle of changing one parameter (bullet weight) and then addressing all of the problems that flow from that change such as: increased slide forces, required changes to throat geometry, magazine restrictions, reduced available case volume, feed angles, twist rates, etc. etc.
All cartridges have ideal bullet weights. While there is some range of bullets weights by cartridge, that range is tighter for handguns than rifles. Handguns really are designed around a specific bullet weight. Revolvers are a bit more tolerant to a larger range of bullet weights than pistols.
Standard bullet weights for a cartridge exist for a reason. Those bullet weights are not accidental or arbitrary.
Wasn't it Warren Page who wrote, "The name of the game is the same"?
From what I saw, the Dwyer (in a standard pistol shooting sane loads) seemed to result in more-consistent groups. In a couple guns, it cut group sizes by >50%. (Makes sense, as it is designed to put the barrel/slide relationship the same each shot.) With hot loads in what was essentially a hunting pistol, it worked to ensure proper engagement of the lugs, resulting in the gun not beating itself to death.
But there was a downside. In pistols set up for standard-velocity loads, it seemed to increase the rate of jams of the failure-to-feed type by as much as .3%. Tiny figure, I know, but it bothered me enough that I didn't use one with standard loads in my other 1911. I suspect it was just because I didn't understand how to tune the pistols for the loads/Dwyer setup. If the installation of the Dwyer doesn't increase the rate of cycling problems, I think it would be a benefit
Some firearms lend themselves to increased performance loads ( Like heavy built Ruger revolvers ). I've never felt that the 1911 design was a very good candidate for this type of thing.
The 230 gr. RN factory load got us through many major global conflicts, In my opinion, the 45 ACP is good " as is ".
Ben
The 230 gr. RN factory load got us through many major global conflicts, In my opinion, the 45 ACP is good " as is ".
Ben
Last edited:
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
Thanks. I added it because this 1911 isn't a carry gun, it's a field gun, or so I intended. I wanted to know what the barrel/load was capable of. The original barrel was more of hole in a hunka steel with some vague spirals inside. Accuracy was not in it's lexicon you might say.
I really have to get that gun done.
Midway has/had the 6 banger 230 tc on sale not too long ago. I still need to get casting with it. I've used a metric ton of 200gr swc, and a handful of 452423 to good effect in a USP. My question is... why the draw to heavier than norm chunks of lead in a 45?? Competition? Bowling pin? Fun?
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
Grocery store "gunzines" are the leading culprit.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
The 45 ACP cartridge started out as a 200 gr bullet. The pistol that would later become the model of 1911 was based on that cartridge. The buyer (read that as the U.S. Government) asked for a heavier bullet. The cartridge bullet weight was increased to 230 grains, everything was adjusted around that new cartridge and it all worked well.
However, 230 grains is on the upper end of that "all good" range of bullet weights for the 1911.
It's one thing to go from the original 200 grains to 230 grains. It is something entirely different to go from 200 to 260.
Now the SIG P220 is a different animal than a 1911. The P75 (AKA P220) was originally built as a 9mm Luger platform. It was later reconfigured for the 45 ACP chambering. By the mid 1970's the 45ACP was well centered on the 230 grain bullet weight and it was the 230 grain loading the 45ACP P220 was designed around. I don't think the SIG P220 is weak but it wasn't designed for a 250-260 grain bullet.
I'm certain A P220 could be made to function with a bullet heavier than 230 grains but at what cost and for what purpose?
Is it really worth it ????
However, 230 grains is on the upper end of that "all good" range of bullet weights for the 1911.
It's one thing to go from the original 200 grains to 230 grains. It is something entirely different to go from 200 to 260.
Now the SIG P220 is a different animal than a 1911. The P75 (AKA P220) was originally built as a 9mm Luger platform. It was later reconfigured for the 45 ACP chambering. By the mid 1970's the 45ACP was well centered on the 230 grain bullet weight and it was the 230 grain loading the 45ACP P220 was designed around. I don't think the SIG P220 is weak but it wasn't designed for a 250-260 grain bullet.
I'm certain A P220 could be made to function with a bullet heavier than 230 grains but at what cost and for what purpose?
Is it really worth it ????
Ian
Notorious member
Like CW, I'm drawn to heavy-for-chambering bullets, but have found in most instances it just doesn't make sense. I worked with the .45 Colt for years trying to up the payload effectively and after developing a 300 grain bullet which fit the cases and all standard revolvers and leverguns well, I had to contend with fixed sights being off, increased recoil, and other downsides. Ultimately I dropped back to a 250-grain design per the original, black powder loading for most shooting and reserve the 300s for short-range +P loads used only in select, modern-design guns capable of handling them easily.
Last edited:
Bret4207
At the casting bench in the sky. RIP Bret.
About what I found in revolvers and small capacity rifle rounds like the 32-20, although not +P for the most part in my case. Heavy for the cartridge bullets can work great, but they also have downsides. So something like a 135 or 150 in a 32-20 is good for shorter range stuff where penetration or knockdown is the point, but they are limited as you increase range. With a larger case it's easier, but even then there are limits to what makes any real sense. I adore the 358009 profile, but it's not a 300 yard bullet in a Whelen, nor is the 311440 going to be super useful at 150 out of a 32-20. When fixed sights are in play, it's more of the same. Love the idea of a 200 gr FP in a 38 S+W, but I know the sights are going to be away off. IMO it works the same way with light for the cartridge bullets too. Yeah, you can shoot a 77 gr bullet from an '06, but the reasons for doing so are limited. Get into something like a 1911 or other bottom feeder and then there are more issues.
Trade offs, right?
Last edited:
Sig 45s were #2 for me. Number 1 was one of those custom Luger conversions I got to play with for a few weeks: it was almost 100% with ammo it liked, but change anything and it was a jam-o-matic. Neat gun though.
In my case, I wanted a 45 for a field gun. My experience at the time was that 1911s tended to be more accurate than revolvers (probably due to cylinder dimensions) (or maybe I just shot them better). I started by getting interested in trying to increase the length of bearing surface over Lyman's 452374 (I didnt understand how to address the skidding I saw on recovered bullets).
First try was a nominally-230gr truncated cone. These solved the skidding problems (more likely, an alloy change solved the skidding problems) and improved accuracy. Then I went to SWC (452423 and 454424), then played with some 300 grain bullets for the 45-90 sized down to .452. (Great accuracy, but it gave new meaning to "rainbow trajectory" due to the very low velocity.)
As a field pistol, the truncated cone was probably the most-significant improvement. This load (slightly over standard velocity) is what I used on that bear that so rudely barged into the tent and woke me up. The 452423 load was what I carried doing a bunch of biological survey work. If I were going to pick a close-to-standard velocity load it would be this bullet at ~850fps. Accuracy was acceptable out to 100 yards or so, and penetration was better than the 200gr SWC.
Second choice would be the 230 TC at about the same velocity. This load did work in my friend's 220, BTW.
The 45 Super work was to see if the concept was as good as it seemed. I still think it is the best CF auto pistol cartridge for field use.
Outpost75
Active Member
RicinYakima
High Steppes of Eastern Washington
I very much like your A45-246H, but I only load 5.0 grains of 231 as that is all I can control in a 1911 frame. A heavy hitter most certainly.
The reason for recommending the 235 grain bullets is accuracy in both my .45 ACP and .45 Colts. I've shot these bullets at the Elmer Keith Memorial Match at 140 yards, 215 yards and 265 yards in stiff S&W Model 25 loads - the misses were all my fault. Calling the shot, they unfortunately went where I was aiming.
Also: They feed well, have knockdown power and cast easily. At velocities duplicating the GI load in a 1911, they will not crack the frame.
Also: They feed well, have knockdown power and cast easily. At velocities duplicating the GI load in a 1911, they will not crack the frame.